Person going into care home thinks they have avoided selling their house to pay fees?

[LindorDoubleChoc]

A distant relative has just sadly gone into care (dementia). He is not married but has a long-term partner with whom he has two adult children.

His family seem to think he won't have to sell his property to pay for the fees because "he has put his house in his son's name". I'm trying to think what this means and surely if it were that simple everyone would do it?

Are they misunderstanding the system? Or how could they have achieved this? They are in England.

But what happens if you sell your house to pay for a care home and the money runs out ? at 7k a month, if a person stays there for 3 years that's £252k, so when the money has gone who pays that 7k a month or are you moved to a council run care home ?

People who weren’t big earners had different priorities. One family had a mortgage, the other was fortunate enough to get a decent council house. The mortgagees perhaps had to scrimp, the tenants could afford a better car, and holidays, or spent most evenings going to the local club.

The household earnings may have been similar, but one family had less to spend on the children, or on leisure etc. They wanted to leave what they’d sacrificed to pay for, their home, to their offspring. Both widows move into the same care home. One is wholly paid for by benefits, the other isn’t. Just because their priorities were different.

Who do you think should pay for any future care home fees then? If you are being cared for by professionals, and having "hotel" costs for board and lodging, then surely you should pay from your own money whether that's pensions, savings or proceeds from a property. I don't understand why people think they can dodge care fees in some way. As someone else said, if you have no money you get no choice of care home, you go where there's a space on local authority funding.

I work in HR for a national care provider this is not uncommon and self pay residents live alongside LA it makes not one jot of difference when it comes to staff

Such a cop out comment. Take some responsibility.

Not everyone who needs care ends up going into a care home - if you need carers to come into your own home (which is a far better option for many people) you still have to pay for it. Might be pensions, savings or releasing equity. Whatever, people who need care will have to pay somehow and there are not going to be enough younger people of working age to pay massive taxes to foot the costs.

I think in future it won’t be as much of an issue as almost everyone will have their own personal pension, which will be able to be used for care fees if needed, I imagine that was a consideration when bringing in auto enrolment. I wonder if they will also bring in the ability to convert an already bought annuity into a care annuity in the next decade or so.
If I outlive DH then need care I would sell the house to use for care before I would use what was left of our pensions - as long as pensions are kept of of IHT calcs that is.

I do think there should be tax breaks for self funders - if you are having to pay huge fees, having your pension / savings income taxed at 40% is a kick in the teeth, not nearly enough people know about immediate care need annuities (that aren’t taxed).
I really don’t understand why you can’t buy insurance for potential care needs.

Not the same at all. If somebody doesn’t have assets, of course society should support their care. Conversely, if somebody does have assets, they should use them to cover their own costs and not leave the taxpayer to pick them up because they want to leave their house to their children.

I posted on this earlier, in many cases the care home will agree for the resident to stay at the LA rate, which is negotiated by the resident’s social worker. It’s a guaranteed filled bed for the home, but they get less money for it, so it’s a call they have to make. If the resident had to move, their family member could ask for them to be moved to a home of their choosing that would agree to take them at the LA rate, they wouldn’t just be moved to a random home.

Care homes tend not to be council run these days, they are council funded, and some provide more LA block beds than others.

Money isn’t the only consideration. Many care homes don’t cater for the most advanced dementia cases and residents may be asked to move if they deteriorate beyond what the home is willing to accept. Care homes who can afford to pick and choose their clientele are more likely to do this, and in fact my mother’s specialist dementia unit regularly received new residents from the very smart establishment up the road.

I've had this conversation with two people recently, including one yesterday who insisted that their home had been put into trust for their DC (couple are in their late 50s), said it was done "years ago" and that now no one would be able to touch their house if they died. It clearly IS possible to do this, although I note the poster earlier in the thread who said they worked for the local authority and that LAs could have this overturned. There must be a definitive answer if this is legal or not? Surely we'd all do it otherwise?

I didn’t think swearing was allowed on mumsnet?

It's definitely allowed!

Encouraged, in fact.

Are you new here?
Mumsnet is RENOWNED for swearing.
Netmums is >>>>>>> that way.

Oh well, the gloves are off then and I’ll
have to respond with something even more offensive 😂

No I’m not new - I’m just clearly unobservant 😂

Ha Ha Ha because every care home resident has a 1:1 carer entirely for them 24/7 365.

Where is this care-home so I can sign up?

Example my sister on benefits all her life, free rent , council tax, my husband and I brought our council house, we still live there in our late 60s early 70s, didn't buy to sell just wanted to own our own house, so yes if it happens she gets free care, we don't, it makes you think, unless you are very wealthy is it worth owning your own home. Hopefully we won't need care, and our children can inherit.

@VaccineSticker no that is the cost of having 24/7 care in your own home. I said a nursing home achieves economies of scale by not offering 1:1.

It depends. What they have done. Is the partner over 60 and do they have tenancy in ccommon. Do they both own a share of home, i was an only child who lived with my parents, my mum left me her share of house when she died. When time came for my dad to go into care, i was 60 and owned half the house.the council could do nothing you cant sell half a house and if partner ot relative over 60 lives there and its their home thry cant sell it to pay for fees..so our house was safe.

If given to son who presumably doesent live there could be different .

Nothing is fair about how social finding. PAYE employees are subsidising people who get to submit their own tax returns with all the deductibles available to them. People who fall below the benefit threshold qualify for a huge range of benefits denied to those who are only slightly above it.

If people have the nous to find a way of passing something on to their children, good luck to them. They will have paid their dues in other ways.

*Nothing is fair about social funding.

So would you take the same view with health care? Surely it is equally entitled to expect the state to pay for your medical care if you have assets to contribute to it?

Good post

I'm not sure of the answer to your question. But to say that care homes that are state funded are horrible is a misconception. My FIL is in a care home paid for with his pension and its pretty nice. It has a garden and the room is like a small apartment. I'm not sure what more proper money would get you really.